I agree. But that doesnt mean that we should care less about Ukraine though (which still makes sense bc its closer to 'home'), it means we should have cared way more about the same war happening in the middle east.
The current sanctions are hurting european people a lot more than they are hurting putin, and thus should be removed. European/american/NATO soldiers should go home, since they are currently occupying more than one sovereing country (the same way putin is), and preferably do it a bit better than they did when they left afghanistan. Only after all of yours and ours (since my country is a part of nato too) soldiers are back home, can we point fingers at putin.
Second, do you believe in preventative maintenance? In this case, Ukraine is preventative maintenance for future actions Russia will take (Russia has already shown from 2014 to now that it will make a peace deal, build strength, and attack again) that will result in more lives lost and worse economic impact. While the price is painful now, it is much less than it would be in 10 years.
Third, what countries meet the definition of being occupied by European/American/NATO soldiers in Europe? Definition: control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory. Your twisting of you know, the actual meaning of words shows your comment is nothing but propaganda, in this case propaganda promoting the bombing of schools, bridges, busses and trains full of people because it has been done in the past and appeasing violence because it impacts your pocket book.
Nato is currently not occupying any european country (unless we count kosovo US base as an occupation), but currently even ours (slovenian) soldiers are in quite a few countries as a part of nato, eg. Syria being one of them.
So yeah... why does Obama get a peace prize for bombing weddings and occupying sovereign countries, and we get expensive gas when putin is saving their minorities in ukraine (atleast this was the narrative when nato bombed serbia)?
I can't find anything about a NATO deployment to Syria. Can you point me to something? NATO aligned countries in Syria <> NATO deployment in Syria. Like your definition of occupation you continue to blend facts and false claims to push your position. Again that is what is known as propaganda. Stretch the truth (NATO aligned countries in conflicts) to appear to have support for your false claims (NATO occupation/NATO deployments that don't exist).
I have many Russian speaking friends in Ukraine. Before the war they identified themselves as 'Russians from Ukraine'. They were educated at Moscow University, speak Russian not Ukrainian, and carry Ukrainian and Russian passports. They now identify as Ukrainian. They are not being saved. But again you are not above using propaganda. In this case you present a false casus belli (that Russia is saving minorities in Ukraine) to sanitize your position of supporting (or at the least not opposing) Russia's war of aggression because bad things happened in the past and also gas prices.
Yes, the USA sucks. Yes, the USA has done bad things. Yes, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has destabilized oil and food markets. I don't see how any of that justifies that Ukrainian should surrender their right to self determination or should prevent governments choosing to take actions to support Ukraine. You present classic 'What about'ism in order to prevent doing good now because bad has been done in the past. It is a form of propaganda not designed to get people to believe something, but to manipulate them into doing nothing, and leads to nothing but apathy. If you can get the good decent people paralyzed with your what aboutism (because oppressors don't care about past atrocities) only aggressors like Putin benefit because there is less resistance against them. You want to setup a world where aggressors go unchecked because we can't have our gas prices going up and bad things have always happened. That sounds like a horrific world, and one we suffered through in WW2. Should England not have fought in WW2 because they had a horrible record of repressive empire? That seems to be your argument.